AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
X570 Aorus master review
Cooler Master Silencio S600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G review
ASUS RoG Swift PG35VQ Monitor review
Intel Cannon Lake Mobile Processors This Year?
While it's not exactly a surprize as we mentioned this a couple of times already Intel last week confirmed it on their technology and manufacturing day, their new 14nm ++ process. Intel also announced that they would start shipping their new 10nm based mobility processors later this year.
So Coffee Lake is the next 14nm CPU design after Kaby Lake bringing six-core / 12-thread processors into high-end laptops and standard desktops for the first time. Then late 2017 Intel would shrink Kaby Lake down to a 10nm node, these are Cannonlake processors. Earlier rumors stated that the new 10nm process would bring Intel a whopping 40% performance improvement. However, the performance first generation of 10nm based is actually expected to be lower than the 14nm++ based processors due to being limited towards low powered mobile chips. Intel has already waved a 10nm Cannon Lake chip around at CES in January this year. But the path to 10nm seems to be a difficult one. The biggest improvement on the new 10nm process will be low power consumption and thus improved transistor density. Intel’s 10 nm process delivers up to 25 percent better performance or 45 percent lower power than the previous 14 nm technology.
Intel has stated that their eighth generation desktop processors would be based on an improvised 14nm process so we can expect the 10nm based (Cannon-Lake) desktop CPUs being perhaps being marketed as the ninth generation desktop processors. As with Kaby Lake, we’l likely see Coffee Lake first in low-power laptops and 2-in-1s, then on the desktop in 2017. There may come a point where you have a choice of a Cannon Lake or Coffee Lake processor. Right now, it is way too early to say which will be the one to buy.
Next Gen Intel Cannon Lake 15% faster and again a 14nm processor - 02/10/2017 06:37 PM
Intel held an investor day briefing yesterday in which it made some claims on the next generation desktop processors. The CPUs next in line will be based on Cannon Lake, interesting to see it that it...
Intel cancels Kaby Lake-H - Kaby Lake Refresh will be Core ix 8000 series - 12/28/2016 11:01 AM
A new road-map from Intel surfaced on the web with the Kaby lake refresh processors, these were called Kaby Lake-H. The new Kaby Lake Refresh models however will be called the Core ix 8000 series and...
Intel cancels Larrabee 1st consumer graphics chip - 12/05/2009 11:59 AM
A massive developing story today as Larrabee in pure GPU has been canceled. The world
Intel cancels several CPUs - 06/19/2009 09:29 AM
We already knew half of this, but things have gone more solid now. Intel recently notified its partners plans to EOL (end of life) several CPUs in the second half of 2009 and first quarter of 2010. CP...
Intel cancels Auberndale and Havendale processors - 02/02/2009 11:32 AM
According to sources in the industry Intel decided to cancel the 45nm
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5416637 Posted on: 04/05/2017 09:38 PM
Think about it for a sec.
25% lower performance would be real measly for a full node shrink.
Think about it for a sec.
25% lower performance would be real measly for a full node shrink.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35711
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35711
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5416641 Posted on: 04/05/2017 09:46 PM
I'll read up and check the news-item from Aritra in a second. He probably misinterpreted the chart.
I'll read up and check the news-item from Aritra in a second. He probably misinterpreted the chart.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5416648 Posted on: 04/05/2017 09:54 PM
Intel should completely open up their fabs to everyone and pocket all that sweet TSMC money.
Intel should completely open up their fabs to everyone and pocket all that sweet TSMC money.
Arbie
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 2008-07-04
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 2008-07-04
#5416664 Posted on: 04/05/2017 10:41 PM
My question is: What's the best guess for when we'll actually be able to buy laptops with tech beyond the current Kaby Lake? Dec 2017? Feb 2018? Trying to plan...
My question is: What's the best guess for when we'll actually be able to buy laptops with tech beyond the current Kaby Lake? Dec 2017? Feb 2018? Trying to plan...
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5416684 Posted on: 04/05/2017 11:29 PM
Finally some news from Intel.
I hope they're cooking some new processor architecture too, current 4 cores are great but have their limits. We want more cores!
Finally some news from Intel.
I hope they're cooking some new processor architecture too, current 4 cores are great but have their limits. We want more cores!
Stormyandcold
Senior Member
Posts: 5188
Joined: 2003-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 5188
Joined: 2003-09-15
#5416750 Posted on: 04/06/2017 03:36 AM
I would like to see Intel deploy Cannon Lake for tablets with more improvements to the igpu.
I would like to see Intel deploy Cannon Lake for tablets with more improvements to the igpu.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9508
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9508
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5416775 Posted on: 04/06/2017 07:00 AM
That would be easy to do. I have not seen worse product graphs in years.
I'll read up and check the news-item from Aritra in a second. He probably misinterpreted the chart.
That would be easy to do. I have not seen worse product graphs in years.
icedman
Senior Member
Posts: 895
Joined: 2013-02-22
Senior Member
Posts: 895
Joined: 2013-02-22
#5416794 Posted on: 04/06/2017 08:22 AM
Yay maybe now we'll finally get some reasonably priced 6 core i7's from Intel with i5's getting hyperthreading.
Yay maybe now we'll finally get some reasonably priced 6 core i7's from Intel with i5's getting hyperthreading.
SirDremor
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
#5416806 Posted on: 04/06/2017 09:44 AM
Finally some news from Intel.
I hope they're cooking some new processor architecture too, current 4 cores are great but have their limits. We want more cores!
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything...
I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best.
Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.
Finally some news from Intel.
I hope they're cooking some new processor architecture too, current 4 cores are great but have their limits. We want more cores!
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything...
I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best.
Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9508
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9508
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5416810 Posted on: 04/06/2017 09:50 AM
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything...
I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best.
Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.
Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything...
I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best.
Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.
Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5416830 Posted on: 04/06/2017 11:22 AM
Maybe you should have a look at how much Intel has given you that per core performance over the recent years. It's not much, not much at all. Two new cores would automatically give you 50%, even if not all old games could put them to perfect use. Without the new cores you are looking at 5%, maybe 10% if Intel was really generous with the clocks.
Intel doesn't much care about our preferences either way.
Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.
Maybe you should have a look at how much Intel has given you that per core performance over the recent years. It's not much, not much at all. Two new cores would automatically give you 50%, even if not all old games could put them to perfect use. Without the new cores you are looking at 5%, maybe 10% if Intel was really generous with the clocks.
Intel doesn't much care about our preferences either way.
Fender178
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
Joined: 2004-09-28
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
Joined: 2004-09-28
#5416832 Posted on: 04/06/2017 11:25 AM
Nice this is exactly the information that I was looking forward to. I hope that this happens. If you are into portable gaming and doing video editing on the go this is the answer. I may get a cannon lake based laptop at some point. Laptops need more than 4 cores if they want to be relevant as their big brother desktop.
Nice this is exactly the information that I was looking forward to. I hope that this happens. If you are into portable gaming and doing video editing on the go this is the answer. I may get a cannon lake based laptop at some point. Laptops need more than 4 cores if they want to be relevant as their big brother desktop.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5416842 Posted on: 04/06/2017 12:09 PM
Yay maybe now we'll finally get some reasonably priced 6 core i7's from Intel with i5's getting hyperthreading.
Knowing Intel and because it's a new expensive and troublesome node, I doubt it. But hey, now there is competition.
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
Not this again...
In 2007 I felt the need to upgrade my Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and in 2008 bought a E8400. Just 2 years later I felt the need for more cores again so in 2011 I bought the CPU I have today still. It's been 6 years, why didn't we move forward? Lack of competition, lack of software support (API level) and we hit a wall. We need more cores at the mainstream level so developers can take advantage of new existing today APIs and develop more complex and immersive games with thousands of units on display. I'm not a VR or streaming kind of guy but that needs allot of CPU kick. I do like to record wile gaming, edit and post on youtube. So, even if you wouldn't take advantage of more cores today, there's people who would.
Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.
ahahah well said.
It's not like a 7700k wouldn't play it but the CPU would be close to max, turn on streaming and you can't play. (don't even try recording at the same time)
Maybe you should have a look at how much Intel has given you that per core performance over the recent years. It's not much, not much at all. Two new cores would automatically give you 50%, even if not all old games could put them to perfect use. Without the new cores you are looking at 5%, maybe 10% if Intel was really generous with the clocks.
What people fail to realise is that adding 2 more cores and lowering the clocks a bit would offer more performance for less power. Having CPU's clocking over a certain point is stupid and inefficient.
Yay maybe now we'll finally get some reasonably priced 6 core i7's from Intel with i5's getting hyperthreading.
Knowing Intel and because it's a new expensive and troublesome node, I doubt it. But hey, now there is competition.
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
Not this again...
In 2007 I felt the need to upgrade my Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and in 2008 bought a E8400. Just 2 years later I felt the need for more cores again so in 2011 I bought the CPU I have today still. It's been 6 years, why didn't we move forward? Lack of competition, lack of software support (API level) and we hit a wall. We need more cores at the mainstream level so developers can take advantage of new existing today APIs and develop more complex and immersive games with thousands of units on display. I'm not a VR or streaming kind of guy but that needs allot of CPU kick. I do like to record wile gaming, edit and post on youtube. So, even if you wouldn't take advantage of more cores today, there's people who would.
Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.
ahahah well said.
It's not like a 7700k wouldn't play it but the CPU would be close to max, turn on streaming and you can't play. (don't even try recording at the same time)
Maybe you should have a look at how much Intel has given you that per core performance over the recent years. It's not much, not much at all. Two new cores would automatically give you 50%, even if not all old games could put them to perfect use. Without the new cores you are looking at 5%, maybe 10% if Intel was really generous with the clocks.
What people fail to realise is that adding 2 more cores and lowering the clocks a bit would offer more performance for less power. Having CPU's clocking over a certain point is stupid and inefficient.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5416945 Posted on: 04/06/2017 03:44 PM
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything...
I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best.
Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.
I think the same way. The only reason to need more than 4 cores is if most games really start to require them otherwise they seem such a waste for those who don´t use their system for professional use.
Fox2232, Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.
Are you sure that you need a cpu with more cores for this type of cases??? I could be wrong but i think the problem with this kind of MP games is the network part that can´t handle so many players at the same time, not the cpu having insufficient cores... But i could be wrong, of course, so maybe you have some evidence to support this? Remember there´s a reason tech sites like Guru3d don´t use MP games as benchmarks.
Can you please elaborate on WHY you need more cores?
And what do 4 cores limit you with?
If you are in 1% of mega-pro users - then I will probably understand, if you are in 10% of gamers - I will doubt, because there are only a few games (and fewer planned) which indeed use more than 4 cores... if you in 89% of other PC users, then 4 cores is more than enough for anything...
I don't mind Intel and AMD releasing 6-8-10-12 multicore chips, it is just that advantage of such chips for ordinary users is absent at best.
Personally I would prefer 10nm, better efficiency and per-core performance, rather than more cores.
I think the same way. The only reason to need more than 4 cores is if most games really start to require them otherwise they seem such a waste for those who don´t use their system for professional use.
Fox2232, Install Battlefield 1, play multiplayer on 64 man map. Become that 1% of mega-pro users who need more than 4 cores.
Are you sure that you need a cpu with more cores for this type of cases??? I could be wrong but i think the problem with this kind of MP games is the network part that can´t handle so many players at the same time, not the cpu having insufficient cores... But i could be wrong, of course, so maybe you have some evidence to support this? Remember there´s a reason tech sites like Guru3d don´t use MP games as benchmarks.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 2010-11-16
No man.
It's EITHER:
45% power reduction
OR 25% higher performance.
10nm++ should bring additional 30% power reduction, or 15% higher performance, compared to 10nm.